In these two cases, also known as the “teaching assistants” cases, Columbia University and Brown University administrations contended that unionization by graduate assistants violated the academic freedom of institutions.

Point Park University challenged an election by faculty members to be represented by the Communications Workers of America. The university incorrectly claimed that full-time faculty members were managerial employees and therefore ineligible for union representation.

In May 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) invited briefs from interested parties on the question of whether university faculty members seeking to be represented by a union are employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act or are excluded managers. The AAUP is of the position that faculty are not managers, and submitted an amicus brief urging the NLRB to develop a legal definition of employee status “in a manner that accurately reflects employment relationships in universities and colleges and that respects the rights of college and university employees to exercise their rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining."

These cases addressed whether graduate student assistants are employees who have collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. AAUP co-signed an amicus brief and argued that the Board should overrule Brown University and return to its prior determination that graduate student assistants are statutory employees. While the case was pending, the union and NYU resolved their disputes and NYU agreed to hold a union election (which the union overwhelmingly won). Therefore, the union withdrew the election petition and the Board declined to rule on the case. The question of whether graduate students are employees is an issue in other cases in which AAUP has submitted amicus briefs.

The AAUP filed an amicus brief with the National Labor Relations Board arguing that graduate assistants at private sector institutions should be considered employees with collective bargaining rights. In its amicus brief, the AAUP argued that the board should overrule the test of employee status applied in Brown to graduate assistants, but did not take a position as to whether the unionization of college football players was appropriate.

In this case the National Labor Relations Board published a significant decision expanding the organizing rights of private-sector faculty members. The Board modified the standards used to determine two important issues affecting the ability of faculty members at private-sector higher education institutions to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act: first, whether certain institutions and their faculty members are exempted from coverage of the Act due to their religious activities; and second, whether certain faculty members are managers, who are excluded from protection of the Act. In addressing this second issue, the Board specifically highlighted, as AAUP had in its amicus brief submitted in the case, the increasing corporatization of the university.

In a highly publicized case in which the AAUP filed an amicus brief, the National Labor Relations Board declined to assert jurisdiction over the Northwestern University football players’ petition seeking union representation rendering the players unable to unionize under the auspices of the NLRB. The Board, however, explicitly limited its decision to the unusual circumstances of the case, avoiding broader questions involving the unionization of graduate student assistants and others.

On March 29, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a decision rejecting attempts by anti-union forces to render agency fee unconstitutional in the public sector. The AAUP filed with the American Federation of Teachers an amicus brief arguing that the payment of agency fees by non-members in collective bargaining unions to support union representation is constitutional. Ultimately the Court upheld an appellate court decision that found agency fee constitutional without addressing the substantive arguments in the case. Rather the Supreme Court decision stated in full “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” Thus, the law remains as it has for over forty years. However, since the Court was equally divided, it could revisit the issue, in this or another case, once a new justice is appointed to the Court.